Retrieve internal forces for ETABS frame elements using object, element, group, or selection item types.
Fuerzas internas en frames. item_type: 0=objeto, 1=elemento, 2=grupo, 3=seleccion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| item_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the purpose and item_type meanings; it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires prior analysis, or how results are scoped or returned. The output schema exists, but the description itself adds little behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief: one purpose statement and an item_type legend. It front-loads the core purpose and has no filler, so it earns high marks for conciseness, though the brevity contributes to missing parameter detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not clarify what name should contain, what limit controls, or when to use this tool relative to sibling output tools. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing input semantics are a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains item_type values (0=object, 1=element, 2=group, 3=selection), which is useful, but it leaves 'name' and 'limit' undefined and does not explain how they interact with item_type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a noun phrase 'Fuerzas internas en frames' rather than an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list,' but it clearly identifies the resource (frames) and the kind of data (internal forces). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling output tools such as etabs_base_reactions or etabs_select_output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like etabs_select_output or etabs_base_reactions. The item_type mapping hints at filtering modes but does not state the use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.